Cochrane · systematic review · CD005083
Honey as a topical treatment for wounds
Jull, AB, Cullum, N, Dumville, JC, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
23
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
4
Included studies
NR
No studies 4 · 17.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 9 · 39.1%Low 5 · 21.7%Moderate 2 · 8.7%High 3 · 13%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Honey compared with conventional dressings for minor acute wounds
Population: patients with Minor acute wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete healing (time to healing)(days) Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 213 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Honey vs conventional dressings | RR 1.19 [0.69, 2.05] | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Infection Honey vs conventional dressings | RR 0.91 [0.13, 6.37] | 3 studies · 151 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Costs Average dressing cost per patient Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low |
Quality of Life6 Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Honey compared with conventional dressings for burns
Population: patients with Burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete healing (time to healing)(days) Mean time to healing Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 992 participants | High |
Adverse events Honey vs conventional dressings | RR 0.56 [0.15, 2.06] | 2 studies · 992 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Negative wound swab Honey vs conventional dressings | RR 1.31 [1.01, 1.7] | 1 study · 92 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Costs5 Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life5 Honey vs conventional dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Honey compared with silver sulfadiazine for burns
Population: patients with Burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete healing Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | RR 1 [0.98, 1.02] | 6 studies · 462 participants | High |
Mean time to complete healing (days) Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 332 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | RR 0.29 [0.2, 0.42] | 6 studies · 412 participants | High |
Negative wound swab Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | RR 3.92 [1.32, 11.63] | 5 studies · 412 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Costs Cost of dressing per percent TBSA affected Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Low |
Quality of Life6 Honey vs silver sulfadiazine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Honey for venous leg ulcers
Population: patients with Venous leg ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete healing (time to healing) | HR 1.1 [0.8, 1.5] | 1 study · 368 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Complete healing (proportion wounds healed) | RR 1.15 [0.96, 1.38] | 2 studies · 476 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events | RR 1.28 [1.05, 1.56] | 1 study · 368 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Infection | RR 0.71 [0.49, 1.04] | 2 studies · 476 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Costs Incremental cost effectiveness ratio | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 368 participants | Very low |
Quality of Life SF‐36 PCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 368 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of Life SF‐36 MCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 368 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |